“[T]he new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

Ryu, true, but in case there is a misunderstanding, the 9/11 Truth movement has never been “liberal” – quite the contrary, the most important advocates have tended to be conservative-ish or right wing, Dr. Steven Jones, the two most famous of the Jersey girls, that business man in Texas whose name I forget, “Father of Reaganomics” Paul Craig Roberts.

The liberal left and the Democrats have been some of the most hostile to 9/11, from Noam Chomsky to that writer from commondreams to Jon Stewart Liebowitz and Bill Maher, to NPR which has been a hotbed of anti-9/11 truth.

Why would the liberals have passed over such a golden opportunity to go after the hated Bush administration? Well, you know, because of the involvement of their favorite shitty little country.